To ask how you know what to believe

[Annabella92]

Aibu to really be unsure what is believable

There is quite a chasm between what is being said on X about the German Christmas Market attack and what the BBC are saying. I've already seen enough examples of the BBC trying to persuade me of things I know with my very own eyes are not true. So I don't trust them. But I don't trust everything I read on X either. How do you triangulate

I'm not trying to look "glorious". My point is that everyone uses ableist language and it's hypocritical to get upset about the "r word" in particular when being fine with the others (which most people are - see @DerekFaker claiming that the "r word" is different from those that I've listed).

I'm not though. I just said that Daily Mail was "of low intelligence". It's nothing to do with the political bias. If the poster had listed The Spectator or The Times or maybe The Telegraph then I wouldn't have posted. It's good to be anti-tribalist and to consume news from sources with different biases, but that doesn't mean you need to have no standards.

Pretty much most news will have a bias so it’s best to use a wide variation. If you look at our history regarding the Troubles there was a different reporting of the situation in England.

Yes, this, and also it's good to educate yourself on the biases that different sources have.

I just said that Daily Mail was "of low intelligence". It's nothing to do with the political bias

I wouldn’t discount the Mail, it’s what many people read so if you want to know what appealing to the masses it’s worth a look even if you disagree with what they are writing.

Fair enough.

Yes, this, and also it's good to educate yourself on the biases that different sources have.

In school a teacher showed us a news story that was in 4 different papers and how to look for the bias, it was really interesting & I never forgot it.

@GoldsolesLugs

That's disingenuous. I don't see you saying "of low intelligence" anywhere, only describing the Mail's readers as "retarded clapping seals".

But let's take you at your word: you don't worry about the paper's alignment and you mean nothing perjorative with your description.

Well, in that case, wouldn't a major paper serving people of low intelligence actually be a very laudible project? Why would you sneer at it on those grounds?

You beat me to it, StrictlyAFemaleFemale; they're certainly not perfect but make a better job of it than most

They're also not influenced by the government of the day (via the licence fee) or a sewer like Twitter, which I blocked long ago

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/death-toll-german-christmas-market-car-ramming-rises-four-bild-reports-2024-12-21/

In the wake of the Southport murders in July 2024, the BBC - and all other reputable news outlets - reported that national counter-terrorism policing stated they did not believe the attack was terrorist-related (and Merseyside Police repeated this view from NCTP). You can literally find all these news stories still online, from multiple news outlets, so to claim it was deliberately sown misinformation by "state media" (which, presumably in your opinion, is the BBC) is utter nonsense since all MSM reported the same information. The charges relating to the production of ricin and the alleged possession of an Al Qaeda training manual weren't added to the indictment until October 2024 and again, the BBC and other reputable news outlets reported this. However, even now we can't be sure what Axel Rudakubana's real motivation was because he's refusing to speak and the judge had to enter Not Guilty pleas for him last Wednesday to the 16 charges he faces. And if he maintains his silence during his trial, which is due to start on 20th January 2025, we may never know what really drove him to kill and injure innocent children and adults.
Incidentally, if your theory that "it was deliberately sown misinformation by state media to quell inevitable social unrest", it wasn't very successful, was it? But no doubt you'd rather get your "reliable" information from the likes of Bernadette Spofforth. Sigh.

A lot of real information and rumors will circulate on social media before being reported by mainstream media.

It is just about assessing the reliability of sources, and seeking variety. Like most of us were taught in history lessons at school, or critical thinking in other courses.

I would not solely rely on any social media post without fact-checking. Who is posting, are they a 'real' account, are they a known person with a specific ideology/ political point of view? Are their images, can I use image reversal tools to check if these are accurate?

What are the official sources (government etc ) are their any statements?

What is on wires services (PA/ Reuters etc.).

What is a media organisations risk appetite (Sky will be quicker than BBC for example)

Flat Earth News by Nick Davies explains media bias very well - particularly the more insidious bias which is not immediately obvious. It also highlights the increase in PR pieces being regurgitated as news. Primarily because the 24 hour news cycle demands constant content, and the volume of articles required to maintain clicks / views, means there's insufficient time to be sourcing new stories.

The BBC is good but they have a bias (reporting on gender identity as mentioned by PP being a case in point). But they are generally much more diligent on verifying sources, which is why they look like they 'break' news a bit later than other news channels.

Social media can be incredible for sharing news quickly, but a lie goes round the world in a flash - look at the Southport murders: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99v90813j5o

I tend to look daily at the BBC, the Guardian, the Daily Mail and Reuters. I'll often check Unherd, ProPublica, the Atlantic and I subscribe to Private Eye, as they often cover things way ahead of others. They've been writing about the Post Office Horizon scandal for years. The Teeside freeport is the next scandal in the making; I'm surprised it's taking so long for mainstream news to pick it up.

People started crying when I said the r-word, so I used "low intelligence" in quotes as a substitute.
You know very well what I mean; when I say "retarded" and "low IQ" I am being pejorative. I mean it as an insult, not a literal description. I'm insulting the Mail and, by extension, its readership because I perceive the paper to be of low quality. I'm not insulting it for its right wing bias.

It was a very simple point that has been complicated by people trying to "gotcha" me with my use of a certain word. Not sure why, maybe they think I'm a leftist.

Te BBC IMO can be quite biased in some areas, and so it's best to take it with a grain of salt. You are less likely to see really wrong information than to find they have left out information. Sometimes this is legitimate -they haven't confirmed things yet for example. But it's also how mainstream news organizations push the narrative they want without it being easily flagged as outright information.

It's shocking when you first see this happening with a news source you trusted, where you know the stort or scenario, perhaps because it is local to you, and then you see a story that deliberately omits elements or paints people deliberatly in a bad light. Once it happens twice you get pretty disillustioned.

Twitter is a mixed bag of course. But they will often be the first place to find new information before it's released elsewhere. You have to be careful though because it can be totally bogus.

I have no idea who Bernadette is - can you enlighten me?

It's also not my opinion that the BBC are the British state media, it is literally a fact. Do you think I'm incorrect? I would most earnestly encourage you to research your sources of information because if you don't even know the most fundamental facts how can you evaluate your sources effectively?

Also, the information about the ricin would have been gleaned from the most cursory introductory searches of his property. They absolutely were aware when they were publishing stories about it not being terror related at the time they were saying it wasn't being treated as such. If you believe in October this was a new discovery then I have a bridge to sell you.

😂😂😂😂

Wow, you have such great research skills, but don't know how to google "Bernadette Spofforth".

RT is Russian state media - as in state-controlled media. Trying to imply the BBC is anything like that just makes you look foolish.

As I have already explained to you - and you can still find all the reports now - ALL MSM media reported what NCTP stated in the aftermath of the Southport attacks i.e. that they didn't believe they were terror-related, not just the BBC, so trying to paint them as akin to RT is totally disingenuous. It seems you've already spent too much time on X/Twitter and made up your mind.

In the case of Southport I think it is likely that the police lied (were hushed) in the immediate aftermath - so the mainstream media were just parroting what they were told but what they were told was a lie.

Still no one is allowed to talk about the context now really.

It's astonishing. The left once knew that mainstream media were corrupt establishment agents... anyone who has studied media theory, Gramsci, Chomsky in particular knew this. What happened to the "left" and their critical faculties.

www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/do-you-remember-what-happened-to-david-kelly/

"The clear implication of Gilligan’s BBC report was that the government had had a hand in an attempt to deceive the public and that Britain’s intelligence services were unhappy with this Whitehall interference. A few days later, in a story in the Mail On Sunday, Gilligan went on to claim that his source had named Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s Communications Director as being behind the inflation of the language in the dossier. An act which amounted to bending the truth to suit a political aim. In other words, the prime minister himself had been responsible through his communications chief, of lying to Britain in order to join the Americans in invading Iraq.
Now that was a hell of an allegation.
Gilligan’s reports immediately brought about the biggest ever multiple car crash involving the BBC, the Government, the intelligence services, and Campbell himself. Everyone emerged from this pile up with deep wounds. Some reputations were carted off on a stretcher. Those who could, limped away. It was a bloody mess. When the smoke finally cleared, one innocent man lay dead."

@Annabella92 ‘I would most earnestly encourage you to research your sources of information ’

says the poster getting their ‘news’ from X 😅😅😅

It's astonishing. The left once knew that mainstream media were corrupt establishment agents... anyone who has studied media theory, Gramsci, Chomsky in particular knew this. What happened to the "left" and their critical faculties.

Whereas the right have the critical faculties ramped up and have all the truth?

Bizarre statement.

...and verified by different news sources.
Journalists often get their information from social media cause theirs a huge amount of information. Doesn't mean they don't factcheck.

Anyway I think getting your news from different media outlets, preferably from different political spectrums and different countries is the way to go.

I also think a social media site owned by a right wing billionaire might curate it's contributions more than people think.

Try the Mail/Telegraph/Financial Times for right wing Establishment / Business view, the Guardian/Mirror for Lib Dem/left of centre view, Morning Star for left / Trade Union view.

You'll be amazed at the difference in reporting.

What really worries me is that there far too many individuals who do not make informed choices around the information sources they use, are not either willing or able to pick out the bias, untruths, hearsay, false news, etc…. that proliferates nowadays. This can and does lead to some very very bad political representative choices.
Whilst some nations are subject to state imposed sanctions around what kind of news they can get, I can’t help but think that social media and media bias are just as poorly chosen due to a degree of self imposed ignorance and a strange willingness to believe every cock and bull story out there. We have some horrible one trick ponies akin to Oswald Mosley driving their own agendas, and the proliferation of outlets is enabling the take up of all sorts of divisive issues.

It certainly will. Just not necessarily the accurate one.